Rapid change management imposed on an organization by a new "outsider" CEO can be necessary and hence useful for the following reasons:
During crisis, financial or otherwise, rapid action and decision making is needed. It is often better for a CEO with (possibly) other senior managers to react quickly to make an imposed strategic or tactical decision. A slow, negotiated change management strategy will delay the process of change. Some dire consequences to an organization may occur in the meantime. The newly appointed CEO is likely to have the right industry knowledge, the confidence, shareholders' support and experience to pursue the change.
An imposed and rapid change may also be suitable when the employees are not ready yet in terms of skills and experiences and/or unwilling to get involved in strategic change. Some argue that change management in this situation is better left to the CEO with his/her experience/skills. A short process that leads to a rapid change is less costly.
The structure, culture and nature of the organization (military, dangerous product, confidential information, nuclear reactor) also affect the nature of change management.
However, a rapid and imposed change is likely to create resentment and resistance if the employees do not perceive the situation as some sort of crisis and/or if they believe that they have the skills, experience and willingness to be consulted and believe they should be allowed to participate in the change management process.
As stated in the stimulus, the new "outsider" CEO may be over confident regarding the support he/she might have as well as inside knowledge and experience. Not being familiar with the culture of an organization especially if the employees are willing and able to participate in the required change management could lead to industrial unrest / dispute / de-motivation and even the loss of skilled employees. Moreover, rapid change will not allow time for training and development, communication and so on.
A non negotiated/imposed change can create fear and seriously affect the motivation of the employees who may feel unappreciated or unimportant. A slow change and possibly a negotiated one is likely to be more accepted and more easily implemented. For these reasons it can be argued that negotiated and possibly incremental change management should be more useful.